National Police Chief Faces Trial For Contempt Of Court

[sriracha john]

National Police Chief Police General Patcharawat Wongsuwan

Police Chief Faces Trial for Contempt of Court

The Supreme Administrative Court has summoned the National Police Chief and the editor of Matichon newspaper for a trial in the case of their alleged contempt of court.

National Police Chief Police General Patcharawat Wongsuwan and Editor-in-Chief of Matichon newspaper, Suwaporn Janfangpetch, today were summoned for trial at the Supreme Administrative Court.

The case resulted from a speech by Patcharawat that was published in Matichon. In the speech, he said his agency’s inaction against ASTV was the result of the court’s injunction banning authorities from taking it off the air.

Chief judge in the trial, Wichai Chuenchoompoonut, said the pair was summoned to be informed that the Supreme Administrative Court did not grant an injunction regarding ASTV as the case filed against the satellite station has already been finalized.

The Police Chief told the court he did not intend to insult the court and that his subordinates, who provided him with the information, did not understand the court's ruling.

Suwaporn said he realized publishing the Police Chief's speech was a mistake, but said his comments were also printed in other newspapers.

The court reprimanded both defendants, saying their actions amounted to contempt of the court and instructed them to more carefully verify their information in the future.

Patcharawat is also required to instruct officials under his chain of command to refrain from committing the same offense or the court will consider the act as intentional contempt.

The court also ordered Matichon to publish its statement clarifying the case.

-- Tan Network 2009-05-13

[TAWP]

I wonder if Red radio-hosts will update their rhetoric now as some of it was based on incorrect info...

[Samuian]

Here we go!

A clear signal in the right direction!

[RubbaJohnny]

Reassuring that top cop's staff cannot understand the law either,I thought this was just ignorant flangs 'n'keks

Me thinks there is a hidden agenderbender somewhere up the strings of the marionettes or am too cynical for LOS

[TAWP]

Reassuring that top cop's staff cannot understand the law either,I thought this was just ignorant flangs 'n'keks

Me thinks there is a hidden agenderbender somewhere up the strings of the marionettes or am too cynical for LOS

You mean a police chief purposely distorts the truth?

Well, Koo82 loves to say that the police is Red, so...

[animatic]

Reassuring that top cop's staff cannot understand the law either,I thought this was just ignorant flangs 'n'keks

Me thinks there is a hidden agenderbender somewhere up the strings of the marionettes or am too cynical for LOS

You mean a police chief purposely distorts the truth?

Well, Koo82 loves to say that the police is Red, so...

That sums it up well...

They are so unfamiliar with the law,

because they rarely consider it during their work week...

>>>>

[blaze]

Reassuring that top cop's staff cannot understand the law either,I thought this was just ignorant flangs 'n'keks

Me thinks there is a hidden agenderbender somewhere up the strings of the marionettes or am too cynical for LOS

You mean a police chief purposely distorts the truth?

Well, Koo82 loves to say that the police is Red, so...

That sums it up well...

They are so unfamiliar with the law,

because they rarely consider it during their work week...

>>>>

For the benefit of those of us who aren't familiar with judicial edicts as translated by the good folk at the TAN- would you- or someone- explain this statement:

"... the Supreme Administrative Court did not grant an injunction regarding ASTV as the case filed against the satellite station has already been finalized."

Does this mean that the SAC did in fact NOT grant an injunction?

If so why not just say so- WHat is the purpose of the qualifier- except to clarify what MIGHT have been a confusing statement from the court in the first place.

Was the mis-statement- that made to the media by the police- also reported in the Post or the Nation?

Edited May 14, 2009 by blaze

[DaleBlue]

Reassuring that top cop's staff cannot understand the law either,I thought this was just ignorant flangs 'n'keks

Me thinks there is a hidden agenderbender somewhere up the strings of the marionettes or am too cynical for LOS

You mean a police chief purposely distorts the truth?

Well, Koo82 loves to say that the police is Red, so...

That sums it up well...

They are so unfamiliar with the law,

because they rarely consider it during their work week...

>>>>

For the benefit of those of us who aren't familiar with judicial edicts as translated by the good folk at the TAN- would you- or someone- explain this statement:

"... the Supreme Administrative Court did not grant an injunction regarding ASTV as the case filed against the satellite station has already been finalized."

Does this mean that the SAC did in fact NOT grant an injunction?

If so why not just say so- WHat is the purpose of the qualifier- except to clarify what MIGHT have been a confusing statement from the court in the first place.

Was the mis-statement- that made to the media by the police- also reported in the Post or the Nation?

I don't get it at all. What is happening here?

[tig28]

I don't get it at all. What is happening here?

Well ... DaleBlue ----- not very much would be a fair guess. This is the National Police Chief who's reinstatement was confirmed by the government despite findings by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) that he (Pol Gen Patcharawat Wongsuwan) ----along with the Former PM, 31 of his former cabinet members and 23 police officers ------should be charged with murder over the clash with protesters at Government House which left two dead and hundreds injured.

Pol Gen Patcharawat Wongsuwan was in overall command of the bloody clash with protesters at Government House . Pol Gen Patcharawat Wongsuwan's elder brother happens to be Gen Prawit Wongsuwan who is Defence Minister in the Abhisit government.

[DaleBlue]

I don't get it at all. What is happening here?

Well ... DaleBlue ----- not very much would be a fair guess. This is the National Police Chief who's reinstatement was confirmed by the government despite findings by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) that he (Pol Gen Patcharawat Wongsuwan) ----along with the Former PM, 31 of his former cabinet members and 23 police officers ------should be charged with murder over the clash with protesters at Government House which left two dead and hundreds injured.

Pol Gen Patcharawat Wongsuwan was in overall command of the bloody clash with protesters at Government House . Pol Gen Patcharawat Wongsuwan's elder brother happens to be Gen Prawit Wongsuwan who is Defence Minister in the Abhisit government.

Thanks for explaining.

[selftaopath]

You mean a police chief purposely distorts the truth?

That sums it up well...

They are so unfamiliar with the law,

because they rarely consider it during their work week...

>>>>

But the police do understand CORRUPTION. See this interesting link and Thailand's ranking re: corruption

http://www.asianoffbeat.com/default.asp?Display=844

[sriracha john]

National Police Chief Found Guilty of Contempt of Court

The Supreme Administrative Court yesterday, held the National Police Chief and Chief Editor of the Matichon newspaper in contempt of court.

The case stemmed from a remark made by National Police Chief, Police General Patcharawat Wongsuwan, that was published in the Matichon newspaper where Suwaporn Janfungpecth works as the Chief Editor.

The police chief said that the inaction against ASTV was a result of the Supreme Court’s injunction banning the authorities from taking it off air.

The remarks in question were in response to the Democratic Alliance against Dictatorship criticism of the orders to shut down D-Station-- when they raised the issue of a double standard, by pointing out that action was never taken against ASTV.

The tribunal ruled that the Police Chief’s remark was intended to get the public to believe that it used preferential treatment with certain groups of people.

The court did not, however, issue punishments for Patcharwat or Suwaporn as the judges viewed their offences as having stemmed from carelessness, but it did warn them to avoid repeating the violation and advised them to check their information before speaking publicly.

-- Tan Network 2009-05-20

[Priceless]

You mean a police chief purposely distorts the truth?

That sums it up well...

They are so unfamiliar with the law,

because they rarely consider it during their work week...

>>>>

But the police do understand CORRUPTION. See this interesting link and Thailand's ranking re: corruption

http://www.asianoffbeat.com/default.asp?Display=844

Just for fun, I went to the Transparency International website ( http://www.transparency.org/news_room/in_f.../cpi_2008_table ), probably the world's most respected authority on corruption. From their list, I picked out the 26 Asian countries (left out Middle East and Eurasia) and got the following ranking list:

Higher Score = Lower Rank = Less corrupt.

Thailand comes in at #8 of the 26, pretty much what I had expected considering the "competition" from Myanmar etc

/ Priceless

[homebody]

National Police Chief Found Guilty of Contempt of Court

The Supreme Administrative Court yesterday, held the National Police Chief and Chief Editor of the Matichon newspaper in contempt of court.

The case stemmed from a remark made by National Police Chief, Police General Patcharawat Wongsuwan, that was published in the Matichon newspaper where Suwaporn Janfungpecth works as the Chief Editor.

The police chief said that the inaction against ASTV was a result of the Supreme Court's injunction banning the authorities from taking it off air.

The remarks in question were in response to the Democratic Alliance against Dictatorship criticism of the orders to shut down D-Station-- when they raised the issue of a double standard, by pointing out that action was never taken against ASTV.

The tribunal ruled that the Police Chief's remark was intended to get the public to believe that it used preferential treatment with certain groups of people.

The court did not, however, issue punishments for Patcharwat or Suwaporn as the judges viewed their offences as having stemmed from carelessness, but it did warn them to avoid repeating the violation and advised them to check their information before speaking publicly.

-- Tan Network 2009-05-20

I feel sad, Was police done wrong of holding a theiv in cell as she denied paying her fine, neither sign admit her attitude??? In which countries policeman can find a lawer as her request at 03.00-04 04.00am??? How a mother left her 4 children at home and having fun thiev holliday in Thailand? Was her mother also alone birthday party in her own home same as her husband taking cares all kids? She win a great victory over Thais. Police seems to be a gabage that any crime running free or else loose jobb. Too much celeblity for real gabage in our society. Last 2 years when I was in Thailand, and drunken farang checked in a hotel with a Thai (prostitude?). He didn't show ID for a night stand. 9 o'clock morning came down and walked away. At noon the maid found his thai partner sit naked in WC with a big big bottle of beer in her belly through her vagina. Let police do their duty, Remember not everyone corruption!!!

[Scott]

So, there was a court order on a case that was already finalized that no one seems to fully understand. Generally, Courts are pretty specific about what is to happen. Jail, no jail. Fine, no fine. On the air, off the air.

There is usually a layer of bureaucracy and chain of command as to who implements a court order.

This is all the more confusing in that they were allowed to stay on the air, and so no one did anything. Now the court seems to be a bit hyper-sensitive about the issue. Seems there may have been some undue influence from somewhere--maybe?

[hhiser]

Wow things really are different in Thailand! In general to be held in contempt of court an entity must make a statement or perform an action while in court presumably while under oath. If Thai law allows one to be held in contempt of court for actions and statements outside of the confines of the court, then what next? Will we all be hauled in front of the local magistrate for disrespecting officers of the law for comments made on Thai Visa?

[Scott]

First, we need to matter, then they might hold us in contempt of court.

[sriracha john]

Wow things really are different in Thailand! In general to be held in contempt of court an entity must make a statement or perform an action while in court presumably while under oath. If Thai law allows one to be held in contempt of court for actions and statements outside of the confines of the court, then what next? Will we all be hauled in front of the local magistrate for disrespecting officers of the law for comments made on Thai Visa?

Perhaps something for members to remember...

Forum Rules

15) Not to use ThaiVisa.com to post any material which is knowingly or can be reasonably construed as false, inaccurate, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law. You also agree not to post negative comments criticizing the legal proceedings or judgments of any Thai court of law.

The National Police Chief needed to be reminded by the Supreme Administrative Court of the law, too, and that's what they did.

Edited May 21, 2009 by sriracha john